DSLR Disappointment
Discussion
Guys/Girls, can you offer any insight into this please?
I've currently got a Panasonic FZ-50 'bridge' camera, which is very good. It's got a 35mm-420mm equivalent lens, which is good for Airshows and Racing etc. I've always been quite happy with the results, until someone at work with an old Sony alpha100 DSLR took more or less identical images as I'd taken and I was able to see them side-by-side. There was a noticably better definition and sharpness with the Sony.
So, I decided to go for a DSLR. Long story short, today I benchmarked the Sony alpha 55, the Canon EOS 550D, and my current Panasonic FZ50 by asking the camera shop guy to make sure I was using equivalent settings on all cameras, and then taking them outside a shooting five or six different objects at varying focal lengths / distances.
When I got the memory cards home and looked at them on my computer, I was amazed to find that the Sony a55 was rubbish in terms of resolution compared with my FZ50. The Canon was marginally better than the FZ-50, but in no way £800 better (about what it would cost to get an equivalent focal length range as I have now.
Where did I go wrong? Or is it the case that DSLR's at this price level are simply not that good? I'd almost decided on the Sony, since I could use my old Tamron 500mm mirror lens (750mm equivalent) with the camera's internal IS system, and it had a flip out screen which I like. Having said that, the wole thing felt like it might disintegrate at any moment. The Sony's standard 18-55mm lens does look and feel incredibly cheap and nasty. The Canon is better, but the manual focus ring feels like it's full of sand. In comparison, my Panasonic feels solid and bulletproof. I'm totally disillusioned by DSLR's after today!
What did I do wrong? It surely cannot be right that a 1 1/8" image sensor can be better than an APS sensor can it? Surely the Sony lens isn't *so* bad? And as for the Canon, I was expecting it to be in a different league to my FZ-50, but it simply wasn't. How come the Sony alpha100 at work resulted in so much better images - is it something to do with lens quality on the newer versions?
Any reccomendations for a DSLR, used or otherwise?
Cheers!
I've currently got a Panasonic FZ-50 'bridge' camera, which is very good. It's got a 35mm-420mm equivalent lens, which is good for Airshows and Racing etc. I've always been quite happy with the results, until someone at work with an old Sony alpha100 DSLR took more or less identical images as I'd taken and I was able to see them side-by-side. There was a noticably better definition and sharpness with the Sony.
So, I decided to go for a DSLR. Long story short, today I benchmarked the Sony alpha 55, the Canon EOS 550D, and my current Panasonic FZ50 by asking the camera shop guy to make sure I was using equivalent settings on all cameras, and then taking them outside a shooting five or six different objects at varying focal lengths / distances.
When I got the memory cards home and looked at them on my computer, I was amazed to find that the Sony a55 was rubbish in terms of resolution compared with my FZ50. The Canon was marginally better than the FZ-50, but in no way £800 better (about what it would cost to get an equivalent focal length range as I have now.
Where did I go wrong? Or is it the case that DSLR's at this price level are simply not that good? I'd almost decided on the Sony, since I could use my old Tamron 500mm mirror lens (750mm equivalent) with the camera's internal IS system, and it had a flip out screen which I like. Having said that, the wole thing felt like it might disintegrate at any moment. The Sony's standard 18-55mm lens does look and feel incredibly cheap and nasty. The Canon is better, but the manual focus ring feels like it's full of sand. In comparison, my Panasonic feels solid and bulletproof. I'm totally disillusioned by DSLR's after today!
What did I do wrong? It surely cannot be right that a 1 1/8" image sensor can be better than an APS sensor can it? Surely the Sony lens isn't *so* bad? And as for the Canon, I was expecting it to be in a different league to my FZ-50, but it simply wasn't. How come the Sony alpha100 at work resulted in so much better images - is it something to do with lens quality on the newer versions?
Any reccomendations for a DSLR, used or otherwise?
Cheers!
IME most DSLR images need work, both in the camera and also pp.
The first shots I ever took on my first Nikon were VERY disappointing, but I later went on to take my best ever shot with the same camera some 18 months or so later.
Difficult to advise which would be best for you as you seem pretty happy with the Panny ?
What do you want from a DSLR that it cant do ?
The first shots I ever took on my first Nikon were VERY disappointing, but I later went on to take my best ever shot with the same camera some 18 months or so later.
Difficult to advise which would be best for you as you seem pretty happy with the Panny ?
What do you want from a DSLR that it cant do ?
What ISO was the images taken with? If it was low light then the camera may have upped ISO too high.
What lens, what settings?
I can take a very sub standard with the 18-55 kit lens and poor white balance or high ISO.
But with my 18-55 F2.8 lens and the right settings I can take a stunning photo that makes me very proud.
What lens, what settings?
I can take a very sub standard with the 18-55 kit lens and poor white balance or high ISO.
But with my 18-55 F2.8 lens and the right settings I can take a stunning photo that makes me very proud.
Toyless said:
IME most DSLR images need work, both in the camera and also pp.
The first shots I ever took on my first Nikon were VERY disappointing, but I later went on to take my best ever shot with the same camera some 18 months or so later.
Difficult to advise which would be best for you as you seem pretty happy with the Panny ?
What do you want from a DSLR that it cant do ?
Yes, I'm happy with it, but the images side-by-side with the alpha100 made me want the increased definition. That's the bottom line really. The FZ-50 has this fancy noise reduction function:The first shots I ever took on my first Nikon were VERY disappointing, but I later went on to take my best ever shot with the same camera some 18 months or so later.
Difficult to advise which would be best for you as you seem pretty happy with the Panny ?
What do you want from a DSLR that it cant do ?
"There have been detailed complaints that the Venus III noise reduction is achieved by smudging the fine image details, and that even in raw mode there is a significant reduction of noise accompanied by loss of fine detail, giving results worse than could be obtained by reducing the noise in a totally raw file by processing with appropriate computer software." (from Wikipedia).
Don't get me wrong, it's capable of suberb images, but I always wonder if they couldn't be better without all the above nonsense.
The other thing I suppose is that mine is a little bit inconsistent and slow in terms of focussing on the subject I pointed it at! Sometimes can be a bit frustrating.
Last but not least was the option of using long lenses (whether my current 500mm, bought in the future or even rented), since even my 420mm equivalent isn't really enough for airshows and the like.
I was prepared to sacrifice the convenience of the 'bridge' camera for superior image quality, but for some reason it just wasn't what I expected of a 2010 DSLR.
Thanks very much for your comments.
In my experience SLR image quality in "basic" conditions (bright day, narrow aperture, fast shutter, cheap lens, 'Auto' mode) is not better than decent compact cameras. Actually in auto mode all of my DSLRs have been hopeless, where my compact cameras never miss a beat!
But as soon as you stray away from auto mode, get a decent lens or two, a nice flash, learn about Raw files, etc. - SLR cameras shoot ahead.
But as soon as you stray away from auto mode, get a decent lens or two, a nice flash, learn about Raw files, etc. - SLR cameras shoot ahead.
It takes a lot of effort and understanding to get the best out of an SLR.
By default if shooting in jpg they tend to produce flatter images than a P&S will ( less contrast, less colour, less sharpening) because even with jpg your expected to do that later (and you cant UNDO it later from the camera if its too much).
You can change the settins to apply more processing but almost all SLR shooters shoot RAW and process themselves on a PC (which is much better but a whole nother technique/learnign curve).
Then we have things like focus etc, at the same settings (given enough light) , same 'focal length' (even though the P&S will be shooting at a real 4mm or something) the P&S will likely have a lot more depth of field so more of the image is in the plane of focus, this you can adjust on the SLR but you cant shoot both at the same settings and expect the same results.
The flipside is that you can isolate subjects much easier with an SLR when you need to. This is one advantage of the large sensor.
One other big advantasge is that big sensor allows it to gather a lot more light so in low light situations it should be a ton better, like 3-4 stops better. Couple that with availability of very fast lenses (f1.8, f1.2 etc) realy comes into its own.
Autofocus is much faster and consistent too due to phase detect rather than contrast.
SLR's take understanding and a bit of effort and knowledge to get the best out of them , which wil be a lot better than any P&S ultimatly.
By default if shooting in jpg they tend to produce flatter images than a P&S will ( less contrast, less colour, less sharpening) because even with jpg your expected to do that later (and you cant UNDO it later from the camera if its too much).
You can change the settins to apply more processing but almost all SLR shooters shoot RAW and process themselves on a PC (which is much better but a whole nother technique/learnign curve).
Then we have things like focus etc, at the same settings (given enough light) , same 'focal length' (even though the P&S will be shooting at a real 4mm or something) the P&S will likely have a lot more depth of field so more of the image is in the plane of focus, this you can adjust on the SLR but you cant shoot both at the same settings and expect the same results.
The flipside is that you can isolate subjects much easier with an SLR when you need to. This is one advantage of the large sensor.
One other big advantasge is that big sensor allows it to gather a lot more light so in low light situations it should be a ton better, like 3-4 stops better. Couple that with availability of very fast lenses (f1.8, f1.2 etc) realy comes into its own.
Autofocus is much faster and consistent too due to phase detect rather than contrast.
SLR's take understanding and a bit of effort and knowledge to get the best out of them , which wil be a lot better than any P&S ultimatly.
'Resolution' amd 'definition'... is this a simple matter of pixel count or focus?
But there is certainly a learning gap to jump between compact and DSLR; it was the same for me when I got my D70. Disappointing at first but you stick with it and suddenly break through.
Think of those drivers who get out of their M5 and try a lap in a F1 car - they either stall or spin off!
But there is certainly a learning gap to jump between compact and DSLR; it was the same for me when I got my D70. Disappointing at first but you stick with it and suddenly break through.
Think of those drivers who get out of their M5 and try a lap in a F1 car - they either stall or spin off!
Simpo Two said:
'Resolution' amd 'definition'... is this a simple matter of pixel count or focus?
I think it's as much if not more to do with sensor size. At least that's what I assumed. My current one is 1 1/8", the DSLR's I was looking at were APS:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format
Zaxxon said:
What ISO was the images taken with? If it was low light then the camera may have upped ISO too high.
What lens, what settings?
I can take a very sub standard with the 18-55 kit lens and poor white balance or high ISO.
But with my 18-55 F2.8 lens and the right settings I can take a stunning photo that makes me very proud.
The lenses on the DSLR's were the standard 18-55 kit lenses.What lens, what settings?
I can take a very sub standard with the 18-55 kit lens and poor white balance or high ISO.
But with my 18-55 F2.8 lens and the right settings I can take a stunning photo that makes me very proud.
I just checked, and some images were at different iso settings (I fixed mine at 100), but even the images with the same settings are not what I'd expect in terms of difference in quality.
Cheers.
RobDickinson said:
It takes a lot of effort and understanding to get the best out of an SLR.
By default if shooting in jpg they tend to produce flatter images than a P&S will ( less contrast, less colour, less sharpening) because even with jpg your expected to do that later (and you cant UNDO it later from the camera if its too much).
You can change the settins to apply more processing but almost all SLR shooters shoot RAW and process themselves on a PC (which is much better but a whole nother technique/learnign curve).
Then we have things like focus etc, at the same settings (given enough light) , same 'focal length' (even though the P&S will be shooting at a real 4mm or something) the P&S will likely have a lot more depth of field so more of the image is in the plane of focus, this you can adjust on the SLR but you cant shoot both at the same settings and expect the same results.
The flipside is that you can isolate subjects much easier with an SLR when you need to. This is one advantage of the large sensor.
One other big advantasge is that big sensor allows it to gather a lot more light so in low light situations it should be a ton better, like 3-4 stops better. Couple that with availability of very fast lenses (f1.8, f1.2 etc) realy comes into its own.
Autofocus is much faster and consistent too due to phase detect rather than contrast.
SLR's take understanding and a bit of effort and knowledge to get the best out of them , which wil be a lot better than any P&S ultimatly.
Yes, I've had three film SLR's in the past (Minolta X-300, X-700 and Canon EOS50E), but after playing with a Canon G1 10 or so years ago, I never went back!By default if shooting in jpg they tend to produce flatter images than a P&S will ( less contrast, less colour, less sharpening) because even with jpg your expected to do that later (and you cant UNDO it later from the camera if its too much).
You can change the settins to apply more processing but almost all SLR shooters shoot RAW and process themselves on a PC (which is much better but a whole nother technique/learnign curve).
Then we have things like focus etc, at the same settings (given enough light) , same 'focal length' (even though the P&S will be shooting at a real 4mm or something) the P&S will likely have a lot more depth of field so more of the image is in the plane of focus, this you can adjust on the SLR but you cant shoot both at the same settings and expect the same results.
The flipside is that you can isolate subjects much easier with an SLR when you need to. This is one advantage of the large sensor.
One other big advantasge is that big sensor allows it to gather a lot more light so in low light situations it should be a ton better, like 3-4 stops better. Couple that with availability of very fast lenses (f1.8, f1.2 etc) realy comes into its own.
Autofocus is much faster and consistent too due to phase detect rather than contrast.
SLR's take understanding and a bit of effort and knowledge to get the best out of them , which wil be a lot better than any P&S ultimatly.
I understand all your points about post processing, but it doesn't really explain the images from the old Sony alpha 100 SLR being so much better than my FZ50, when, on the face of today's experience, the Sony alpha 55 is *apparently* inferior, and markedly so. I do wonder if that crappy looking and feeling lens is to blame? I use the 'in depth' reviews on DPreview.com whenever I'm considering a camera, and based upon the verdicts on the Canon and Sony, I assumed both should have easily outperformed my Panasonic with the kit lenses.
BTW, both the DSLRS were on the 'P' setting. I've got all the image info, so I know I'm comparing like with like in that respect. The image files were .JPG's on all three cameras. I've never tried RAW, but might give it a go sometime.
Thanks for the comments.
The main thing with DSLRs is that they can perform in situations a compact simply cannot.
For instance a USAF F-15 flying straight at you on reheat.
Or a gr4. Keeping the plane pin sharp and blurring the background, whilst keeping detail from the engine wash.
The slr will have superior focus speed, shutter speed, image burst rate ect.
Another instance is that a slr is better suited to specific work. Such as a photog who wants to shoot insects eyes whilst they are sat on a leave.
An SLR will wipe the floor with anything else in "extreme" situations, but most SLR users wont change it out of Auto. An SLRs auto modes are stone age when compared to a decent compact. This is because the auto modes are there for basic users and are usually expected to to do the hard work, whilst a compact is made primarily to be used in auto and to be point and shoot.
For instance a USAF F-15 flying straight at you on reheat.
Or a gr4. Keeping the plane pin sharp and blurring the background, whilst keeping detail from the engine wash.
The slr will have superior focus speed, shutter speed, image burst rate ect.
Another instance is that a slr is better suited to specific work. Such as a photog who wants to shoot insects eyes whilst they are sat on a leave.
An SLR will wipe the floor with anything else in "extreme" situations, but most SLR users wont change it out of Auto. An SLRs auto modes are stone age when compared to a decent compact. This is because the auto modes are there for basic users and are usually expected to to do the hard work, whilst a compact is made primarily to be used in auto and to be point and shoot.
Edited by XG332 on Thursday 30th December 20:56
Theres a LOT to consider here. I will talk about the canon because I know canon, dont know sony.
P mode for one will not work so great on the canon unless you understand it, it will activate all the focus points by default and focus on the closest subject under the focus system, this is almost certainly not what you will want it to focus on. Coupled with a shallower DOF for the aperture likely selected will make a lot more of the image out of the plane of focus (out of focus).
The add in canons typical very soft default picture style for jpg, sharpening can never be removed but you can always add more.. also contrast and colour will be minimal so the images will lack punch as is.
Now couple that with it being 18mp vs 10mp and a 100% view will be a lot more revealing on the canon .
The canon 18-55 IS kit lens is actualy fairly decent for a cheap kit lens but its still going to be quite limiting in IQ compared to most other lenses for SLR's
P mode for one will not work so great on the canon unless you understand it, it will activate all the focus points by default and focus on the closest subject under the focus system, this is almost certainly not what you will want it to focus on. Coupled with a shallower DOF for the aperture likely selected will make a lot more of the image out of the plane of focus (out of focus).
The add in canons typical very soft default picture style for jpg, sharpening can never be removed but you can always add more.. also contrast and colour will be minimal so the images will lack punch as is.
Now couple that with it being 18mp vs 10mp and a 100% view will be a lot more revealing on the canon .
The canon 18-55 IS kit lens is actualy fairly decent for a cheap kit lens but its still going to be quite limiting in IQ compared to most other lenses for SLR's
I don't know anything about the two cameras that you compared yours with at the shop but could it be that only your camera had Image Stabilisation, and you were getting some camera shake with the other two?
Also, I presume your camera was the only one with Contrast Detection auto-focus,
which despite being slower than Phase Detection is in many cases (eventually
) more accurate; you only have to look at the myriad of posts in camera forums complaining about back focus or front focus issues to realise that there are fairly widespread Phase Detection problems.
So maybe the lack of what you describe as 'definition', could be contributed to a little camera shake and/or a slight mis-focus?
Also, I presume your camera was the only one with Contrast Detection auto-focus,
which despite being slower than Phase Detection is in many cases (eventually
) more accurate; you only have to look at the myriad of posts in camera forums complaining about back focus or front focus issues to realise that there are fairly widespread Phase Detection problems. So maybe the lack of what you describe as 'definition', could be contributed to a little camera shake and/or a slight mis-focus?
XG332 said:
The main thing with DSLRs is that they can perform in situations a compact simply cannot.
An SLR will wipe the floor with anything else in "extreme" situations, but most SLR users wont change it out of Auto. An SLRs auto modes are stone age when compared to a decent compact. This is because the auto modes are there for basic users and are usually expected to to do the hard work, whilst a compact is made primarily to be used in auto and to be point and shoot.
Thanks for the comments. An SLR will wipe the floor with anything else in "extreme" situations, but most SLR users wont change it out of Auto. An SLRs auto modes are stone age when compared to a decent compact. This is because the auto modes are there for basic users and are usually expected to to do the hard work, whilst a compact is made primarily to be used in auto and to be point and shoot.
Edited by XG332 on Thursday 30th December 20:56
As I said I have used SLR's before, but 35mm film not digital. In fact I've had dozens of motor racing photos published (admittedly it was only the MGCC Magazine!) including three - not particularly inspiring - covers.
I can figure out aperture and speed and all the rest of it, but DSLR's and the associated post-processing techniques are completely new to me.
Elderly said:
Also, I presume your camera was the only one with Contrast Detection auto-focus,
which despite being slower than Phase Detection is in many cases (eventually) more accurate; you only have to look at the myriad of posts in camera forums complaining about back focus or front focus issues to realise that there are fairly widespread Phase Detection problems.
I wont argue that phase is generaly less accurate than contrast, it likely is but when your seeing SLR users complan of miss focus your looking at a much much smaller depth of field than any P&S can delvier.which despite being slower than Phase Detection is in many cases (eventually
) more accurate; you only have to look at the myriad of posts in camera forums complaining about back focus or front focus issues to realise that there are fairly widespread Phase Detection problems. Focus is much more critical when you have a 1cm DOF than when you have a 3ft DOF!
The fz250 does a maximum f2.8 to f3.7 with a real focal length of 7.4-88mm.
An SLR can be shooting at 85mm at f1.2 ...
dr_gn said:
As I said I have used SLR's before, but 35mm film not digital. In fact I've had dozens of motor racing photos published (admittedly it was only the MGCC Magazine!) including three - not particularly inspiring - covers. I can figure out aperture and speed and all the rest of it, but DSLR's and the associated post-processing techniques are completely new to me.
It seems you are treading the same road as I did. Sensor size per se is not the issue I feel. You are clearly up to speed on the physics of photography but the digital bit is new. Therefore you need to learn a few new tricks, and I would suggest (1) At time of capture, exposure by means of the histogram. (2) Afterwards aka post processing, levels and curves aka Photoshop or similar. Stay with JPG until your results improve because RAW introduces extra complexity you don't need just yet. But as mentioned, we can't do any more than that until we can see what you mean. Picture being worth 1,000 words etc!
Edited by Simpo Two on Thursday 30th December 21:55
The difference in quality will be more noticeable depending on the lens you're using on the SLR and the ISO setting, as you can see here:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page...
The FZ50 seems a decent camera, so it may very well be the change isn't worth it for your needs.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page...
The FZ50 seems a decent camera, so it may very well be the change isn't worth it for your needs.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff